[janvidar]

Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie?

Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation. Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do.

This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this.

And, this is probably a good thing.

[13years]

Because banning gives a government the power to hide the truth. Who gets to decide something is a lie? The majority may all be in favor this time, but what gets banned next?

There is no issue with schools deciding it is not in their interest to teach a subject; however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning.

How about letting schools teach the subject along with skills on how to do proper investigation and scientific research and logical reasoning. In other words, how about teaching the kids how to logically reason through fact or fiction so they are prepared to analyze other subjects appropriately.

[olavk]

By that line of reasoning schools should no teach anything at all. 2+2=5 is just as valid math as 2+2=4, anything else would be allowing the government to hide the truth!

[13years]

That is not what I stated. Banning is saying that we can't discuss why 2+2 is not 5, because that subject is banned.

If a lot of people come often come to a wrong conclusion, you should be able to teach and discuss why that happens. Banning subjects is running away from debate and discussion. It fails to teach logical analysis and investigation.

[mikeash]

If any of my math classes had wasted a bunch of time on, "While we know that 2+2=4, there are a bunch of people who believe that 2+2=5, here's why they're wrong," I would have been rather annoyed.

The space of things that are wrong is too vast to explore thoroughly. Stick to what's right.

[13years]

I didn't expect anyone to take the example as a literal. The example was only a concept in response to the original poster who used it as a concept prop for their argument.

"Stick to what's right" lol, that's the point. Who decides what is right? The government? The teachers? Education should be more about how to learn and how to discover truth, not about force feeding what some bureaucrat thinks is right or wrong or important. The greatest period of geniuses per capita in history were during time of when the socratic method was used for teaching.

[pvaldes]

> Who decides what is right?

The scientific method. This is what we call it 'science' and not just 'opinion' or 'novel'.

[olavk]

Off topic I know, but what time is you talking about with "genius per capita"? I wonder how this have been measured.

[olavk]

Who is talking about banning subjects? It is just a question of keeping science in science classes, and the study of religious ideas in classes about the study of religions ideas. For example the change from the geocentric to a heliocentric model and the Galileo controversy are important parts of the history of ideas and should be studied as such. But obviously the Ptolemaic model should not be thought in astronomy classes as if it was valid science.

[Oletros]

> however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning

They are allowed to discuss a subject, but not on the science class because it is not science. Or do you think that it has to be allowed to teach that the Earth is flat in science class?

[gizi]

"Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie?" Creationism is not a lie. It is just not science. But then again, the same holds true for evolutionism, which is also not a lie. It is just also not science.

[olavk]

What is "evolutionism"? I've never heard that word before.

Ah, Wikipedia has the answer: "In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism

[mikeash]

I don't like the word "lie," because it implies too much about people's motivations. A lie is a statement that the person believes to be false but says anyway. Creationists usually believe their own proclamations, so it's not a lie. It is, however, false. Creationism is false, both in large and in detail, in that it makes a great deal of claims that are demonstrably untrue.